File talk:Kosovo relations.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Brazil[edit]

There is a colour specific for those states that have expressed wish for further negotiations. According to the quoted statement from Brazil's External Relations Ministry, that is Brazil's official position. Nevertheless, Brazil is painted with the colour of neutral states, and not with the colour of those states that wish for more multi-lateral talks. Can someone change that? --189.25.53.246 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"planing"[edit]

There is no such thing as "planning not to recognize". If the state says they do not recognize it that's it, they consider Kosovo to be what it was up until yesterday. And all countries that haven't specifically said they recognize Kosovo are in the group of countries that haven't recognized it. --Avala (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between recognising Kosovo as part of Serbia and not taking any stance at all; many states do not recognise the independence of the SADR, but many of them don't recognise the territory as belonging to Morocco, either. There's a difference. —Nightstallion (?) 16:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I changed the "Countries which consider Kosovo to be an Autonomous Province of the Republic of Serbia." to "Countries that do not recognize independent Kosovo" --Avala 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Fair enough. If, however, it turns out later that there's more than just one or two countries which claim to be neutral, I'd prefer to differentiate. Would that be okay with you? —Nightstallion (?) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that is fair but regarding NZ - statement by the PM "it was never the government's position to offer diplomatic recognition in such circumstances." isn't exactly neutral. It makes NZ against independence but I guess also against the previous status either. My guess is that NZ would be satisfied with some kind of wide autonomy from Serbia but not independence. But I guess there will be straight forward neutral countries. --Avala 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. —Nightstallion (?) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NZ position is clearly neutral. There is a clear difference between their stance and the anti-separatist stance taken by countries that are concerned about Serbian relations, or their own separatist movements. Cwolfsheep 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source!?[edit]

Can you please give sources when a country is colored blue? Thanks in advance. --Jeroenvrp 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan[edit]

as Cyprus is one color, Taiwan should be either no color or follow the PRC. Matthew_hk tc 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure we should include the TRNC (only recognised by one state; Taiwan has more recognition), I suppose we should have two colours on Cyprus, then. —Nightstallion (?) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China are planning to recognize Kosovo. It should be light blue. PRC have stated, that they will not recognize Kosovo as independent. 快樂龍contentquestionconsequence (on de.wiki) 11:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus[edit]

The Republic of Belarus believes that the settlement of the Kosovo and Metochia status should progress under international law, based on UN Security Council resolution 1244 (of 1999) which is a fundamental document for the Kosovo settlement certifying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia, and based on the key provisions of the UN Charter and Helsinki Final Act, with the essential role of the UN Security Council bearing a predominant responsibility for safeguarding international peace and security. --Avala 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria[edit]

The most recent news state that Bulgaria WILL recognise Kosovo. —Nightstallion (?) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional category[edit]

I'm afraid I don't like the new addition. Those four states did not really issue statements which differ much from others we have in the "delayed" category, and it overcomplicates the map in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concern[edit]

I have added states which have expressed concern over unilateral moves as we can not put Czech R. which might recognize Kosovo with New Zealand and China which have openly stated they are concerned over such moves and will not reocognize Kosovo. --Avala 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NZ has stated it will neither recognise independence nor reject it for now -- you can't group that in the same category as China, for instance. I still say this overcomplicates the map and forces us to make too many judgment calls. Without this category, everything is much clearer. —Nightstallion (?) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pro simple map but if we go into details then we go into details not somewhere in between. I have grouped NZ ("It's never been the New Zealand Government's position to recognise in such circumstances.") and China (deeply concerned" and urged Serbia and Kosovo to continue negotiations.), though it's obvious China is not going to recognize, judging from their rhetorics towards Taiwan for recognizing Kosovo and from saying that they want continued negotiations over status (not something they would say as neutral or postponing decision). --Avala 13:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still say we should move Bosnia, China, New Zealand and the Philippines back into the former category and label it "no clear position expressed up to now" or something like that. In the end, we'll only have four categories, anyway: recognises (blue), doesn't recognise (orange), neutral/non-committed (tan), position not known (grey). That would be as simple as it gets, and I'm in favour of that. —Nightstallion (?) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've clarified it with "States which have expressed concern over unilateral moves or expressed wish for further negotiations." because atm we cannot put China into the same group with Netherlands because their positions are obviously quite different and they lean strongly in two directions. --Avala 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Okay, I can live with that for now, but in the end, I'd prefer to have only four categories as described above, okay? —Nightstallion (?) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but I think we will have to wait some time until things clear up. Until then this 2-1-2 system is probably the best solution. --Avala 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 2-1-2---1 system, rather. (Don't forget the "completely unknown"/grey countries. ;)) But yeah, fair enough. —Nightstallion (?) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from Montenegro case which was clear it will take some time for those countries to react and maybe they never will, considering slim chances of Kosovo becoming UN member. Though there are no rules. It took Costa Rica one year to recognize Montenegro but they did it with Kosovo in the same day.--Avala 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 16:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Germany recognises Kosovo as an independent state as of today. See [1] --Voyager 10:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Helena[edit]

Good job getting all the tiny little islands owned by Great Britain and France, but Saint Helena has been overlooked. 128.205.176.38 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if no one can spot these islands on the map even with a magnifier - done. Gugganij 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

Technically the colours make this map biased: ¿red and blue? this is not the Cold War, I suggest blue>green and red->orange. Green&Orange will make this map NPOV.

This is silly. Red is usually a symbol of no and blue should indeed be changed to green but it's not a life or death issue. --Avala 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikstan[edit]

Sorry, I my 'edit summary' wasn't very clear, the version I now uploaded had marked Tajikstan. --Soman 10:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia is concerned as like as the Philippines. But it's still grew. [2] --85.180.34.141 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in "grew" because they made no formal statement. --Avala 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me[edit]

I want that inside Spain there are some diferent colour becausei Galicia, Catalonia and Basque Country, they recognize the kosovo Independence. If you can more references, you can say me but there are in Catalan or some Spanish think it.

[3] --Krls 12:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this comment. Is it possible to add some stipped regions in Catalonia, Basque Country, Galicia, Quebec, Transnistria, Ichkeria...? This would show these regions' goverments support to Kosovo independence despite official position of their national goverments.--80.30.114.222 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No because the only valid body in Spain to make this decision is the Government of Spain. Maybe Scotland supports this independence as well but we are not going to stripe the UK for that because the decision comes from London. --Avala 12:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Spain's decision is no recognizing but we should not ignore this lands' opinions. It's mentioned on the article and I think that it should be shown on the map. I dont think that the entire country should be stripped but only these regions. --79.147.90.142 23:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this regions he support the kosovo independence and in this map show that ALL spain doesn't want kosovo independence. There are any problem that this map add some stipped regions. In the article of Kosovo independence (Wikipedia) say that this regions support independence (kosovo). So One map show graphically the article content and in this moment, it isn't really content in this map. --Krls 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 different colours in the map. I think a good solution could be adding an 8th colour of "States which despite having stated they will not recognize Kosovo as independent, some of their subdivisions have supported Kosovo's independence" or something symilar. Another possibility could be (in the case of Spain, for example) painting the hole country with one colour and then the terrirories which support Kosovo could be painted with a double colour as in some parts of Image:Distribution langues slaves.jpg, including the propper explanation that the global position is one, but there are some discrepancies.
Of course the oposite can be also done if there is a Country which officialy supported Kosovo but a subdivision of this Country rejected it.--Xtv 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. States recognize states, this is a map of diplomatic relations. Whether the government of La Rioja recognizes Tibet or not might be interesting as an anecdote, but it is not in any way a diplomatic recognition. --Soman 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that "anecdote" is the proper word. Maybe for you may be ridiculous but for citizens and politics in La Rioja may be such an important thing to take into account. I take your opinion that only states can recognize states but everyone can give his opinion and that's what I meant. Every opinion should be important here and not only the oficial one. Dont you agree?--83.33.236.211 11:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a map of diplomatic recognition, only sovereign states can give other sovereign states diplomatic recognition. There are some difficult cases (Western Sahara, Taiwan, etc.), but subnational entities (autonomous republic, districts, provinces, etc.) cannot be included. --Soman 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia[edit]

Fixed the picture. Bosnia was dark orange, but should have been light orange. Bosnia's color was changed by CP6 in the first place. Bushido92wiki 10:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV corrections needed[edit]

Contrary to some, diplomatic langauge is often deliberately ambiguous. Chile, calling on parties to carry on a peacable dialog within the norms of UN charter, is not necessarily to be construed as denial of recognition and insistence on carrying out more of the previously failed negotiations within old frameworks. UN Charter includes the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which gives peoples the right to self-determination, which is also the VIII clause of hte Helsinki Final Act from 1975, whose III clause about inviolable borders is often quoted, yet conflicts with the VIII clause.

All this simply means, Chile said in its press release: keep talking and don't resort to violence, and this advice presumably extends to today's governments and populations, as well as politicians and other individuals. Chile could have indicated an intention to not recognize or to recognize independent Kosovo, but chose not to do so at this time. This is indicative of a neutral position and should be faithfully portrayed so on the map: Chile should be colored khaki.

There eare other skewed presentations on this map in need of correction:

  • Cuba, marked red. Should be reverted to gray, as a country with no official position on record. The evidence supporting "red" is an unofficial rant by Fidel Castro quoted in a newspaper, not any press release or other official utterance of the Cuban government.
  • New Zealand, marked in orange. Should be marked khaki, as neutral, since per prime minister Helen Clark, New Zealand will never recognize or not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence explicitly.
  • Macedonia has been marked in khaki today as neutral. It should have remained light blue, as Macedonia is negotiating with the new government of Kosovo their mutual border demarcation, as well as on record as followign NATA and EU positions, and being a NATO and EU candidate state. Most NATO and EU states recognized independence of Kosovo, or are about to, and both EU and NATO are committed to enforcing its independence. All these facts persuade for marking Macedonia light blue, as intending to recognize.

Previous incarnations of this map included similarly biased and unwarranted selective reading, resulting in depicting India and Armenia in orange, which currently are painted again corectly in khaki, as neutral.

Editors should be aware of considerable POV-skewing going on both in the article edits and discussion on the English Wikipedia, and in subsequent coloring of these the maps on Commons. Changes to maps in Commons affect many other uses, quite apart from the latest, posibly POV, edit on the English Wikipedia, so care should be taken to keep these maps stable and NPOV, erring on the side of conservative changes, and making changes in clearly documented cases, such as an official recognition or official denial of recognition by a state. --Mareklug talk 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with all above proposals. They are not based on sources provided on Wikipedia but on personal views. --Avala 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough[edit]

I propose that here and now, before any more attempts at "updating" this map take place, we properly source what we already have and put it on the image's description. I may start doing so myself. This will help alleviate edit warring. Also, please note, that reliable sources include neutral third party sources, and as such statement's by groups such as Serbia's or Kosovo's government are not neutral. Patstuart (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City[edit]

I thought the Holy See called for new negotiations? --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa[edit]

South Africa doesn't recon Kosovo as an independant state. Adjust please! 82.95.88.169 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a source please? It's currently orange. Patstuart (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://allafrica.com/stories/200802191373.html There you are. SA is light orange, should be dark. 82.95.88.169 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this appears correct from the article. The article does not outright say that SA will not recognize Kosovo, but that it has called for further negotation. It has also expressed reservations with "unilateral" moves: this is, in fact, the exact definition of orange. Patstuart (talk)

Montenegro[edit]

...should be orange now. --PaxEquilibrium 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Thanks (not all of us are intimately involved with Kosovo in the world). Patstuart (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Kosovo_relations.png&oldid=11189236"